Kevin J Clerkin1, Veli K Topkara1, Donna M Mancini2, Melana Yuzefpolskaya1, Ryan T Demmer3, Jose M Dizon1, Koji Takeda4, Hiroo Takayama4, Yoshifumi Naka4, Paolo C Colombo1, A Reshad Garan5. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York. 4. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York. Electronic address: arg2024@cumc.columbia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) provide a significant mortality benefit for appropriately selected patients with advanced heart failure. ICDs are associated with a mortality benefit when used in patients with a pulsatile left ventricular assist device (LVAD). It is unclear whether patients with a continuous-flow LVAD (CF-LVAD) derive the same benefit. We sought to determine if the presence of an ICD provided a mortality benefit during CF-LVAD support as a bridge to transplantation. METHODS: Patients were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry who underwent LVAD implantation as bridge to transplantation between May 2004 and April 2014, with follow-up through June 2014. Primary outcome was freedom from death while on CF-LVAD support with adjustment for complications requiring UNOS listing status upgrade. Secondary end-points included freedom from delisting while on CF-LVAD support and incidence of transplantation. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 2,990 patients, and propensity score matching identified 1,012 patients with similar propensity scores. There was no difference in survival during device support between patients with and without an ICD (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-2.17; p = 0.55). Adjusting for device complications requiring a UNOS listing status upgrade had minimal influence (HR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.60-2.05; p = 0.74). There was no increased risk of delisting owing to being too sick for patients with an ICD (HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.63-1.86; p = 0.78). Likewise, the probability of transplantation was similar (HR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.27; p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients bridged to transplantation with a CF-LVAD, the presence of an ICD did not reduce mortality.
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) provide a significant mortality benefit for appropriately selected patients with advanced heart failure. ICDs are associated with a mortality benefit when used in patients with a pulsatile left ventricular assist device (LVAD). It is unclear whether patients with a continuous-flow LVAD (CF-LVAD) derive the same benefit. We sought to determine if the presence of an ICD provided a mortality benefit during CF-LVAD support as a bridge to transplantation. METHODS:Patients were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry who underwent LVAD implantation as bridge to transplantation between May 2004 and April 2014, with follow-up through June 2014. Primary outcome was freedom from death while on CF-LVAD support with adjustment for complications requiring UNOS listing status upgrade. Secondary end-points included freedom from delisting while on CF-LVAD support and incidence of transplantation. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 2,990 patients, and propensity score matching identified 1,012 patients with similar propensity scores. There was no difference in survival during device support between patients with and without an ICD (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-2.17; p = 0.55). Adjusting for device complications requiring a UNOS listing status upgrade had minimal influence (HR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.60-2.05; p = 0.74). There was no increased risk of delisting owing to being too sick for patients with an ICD (HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.63-1.86; p = 0.78). Likewise, the probability of transplantation was similar (HR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.27; p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients bridged to transplantation with a CF-LVAD, the presence of an ICD did not reduce mortality.
Authors: Marwan M Refaat; Toshikazu Tanaka; Robert L Kormos; Dennis McNamara; Jeffrey Teuteberg; Steve Winowich; Barry London; Marc A Simon Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Shashima Nakahara; Christopher Chien; Jill Gelow; Khidir Dalouk; Charles A Henrikson; James Mudd; Eric C Stecker Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-06
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; John P DiMarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; David P Faxon; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Daniel J Cantillon; Khaldoun G Tarakji; Dharam J Kumbhani; Nicholas G Smedira; Randall C Starling; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: B Woods; N Hawkins; S Mealing; A Sutton; W T Abraham; J F Beshai; H Klein; M Sculpher; C J Plummer; M R Cowie Journal: Heart Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Kevin J Clerkin; Veli K Topkara; Ryan T Demmer; Jose M Dizon; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Justin A Fried; Xingchen Mai; Donna M Mancini; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo; A Reshad Garan Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Paulino A Alvarez; Brett W Sperry; Antonio L Pérez; Dmitry M Yaranov; Varinder Randhawa; Jacob Luthman; Daniel J Cantillon; Randall C Starling Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-07-06 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Evgenij V Potapov; Christiaan Antonides; Maria G Crespo-Leiro; Alain Combes; Gloria Färber; Margaret M Hannan; Marian Kukucka; Nicolaas de Jonge; Antonio Loforte; Lars H Lund; Paul Mohacsi; Michiel Morshuis; Ivan Netuka; Mustafa Özbaran; Federico Pappalardo; Anna Mara Scandroglio; Martin Schweiger; Steven Tsui; Daniel Zimpfer; Finn Gustafsson Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Andrew Y Lin; Hao Tran; Michela Brambatti; Eric Adler; Victor Pretorius; Travis Pollema; Jonathan C Hsu; Gregory K Feld; Kurt Hoffmayer; Frederick Han; David Krummen; Gordon Ho Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-12-14 Impact factor: 1.900